| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: 10g introduction
Hi,
You say that you are moving to Oracle. So the alternative to 10G is 9.2 with
the highest patchset. An argument for using 10G is that you will miss out
the eventual migration when Oracle drop support for 9.2. There are known
bugs with 10G, some have been talked about on this list. If I were you I
would be arguing for 10G because it is the most recent version of Oracle and
therefore you should get the best possible support from Oracle. Your
"fallback" plan can be to go with 9.2 if 10G throws a show stopper at you.
Regards
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
On Behalf Of Eric Buddelmeijer
Sent: 02 December 2004 08:51
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: 10g introduction
Hi all,
We are in the process of developing a new application with 'all new' technology. Formerly a shop with HP-UX, ingres and abf, we are now moving to Sun-Solaris, Oracle and java. We already have some oracle databases running on solaris, one of them being a 300GB datawarehouse on oracle 9.2.0.5. I am starting an issue with project management to introduce 10g. They do not want risks during the development process (planned to last about a year). And they had a bad experience with the development tool which did not perform as expected (and as promissed by the supplier). Leading to the selection of other development tools and much frustration. The suggestion was they needed references to 'well known' production sites that are using 10g before even considering to introduce a new 'risk' as 10g might be. Application will have about 200+ tables and be 100GB approximately. Money related application, so security will be an issue as well. Could any of you provide us with these references? Or links?
Thanks ,
Eric.
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Dec 02 2004 - 11:00:40 CST
 |
 |